Q: Will there be any changes to 8-man parties in A Realm Reborn? Will there be content for solo players or smaller parties? A: We’ll continue to add content like Skirmish that can be played in parties of four, and those that can be enjoyed without worrying about numbers.

We are preparing content known as a “Full Active Time Event.” It borrows the words “active time” from the FINAL FANTASY series. I think this will be appearing very often in our PR activities from here on out.

It will be difficult to explain the system without a video. For example, an NM pops. A notification of this is sent to all players in the zone, who then converge on the NM. Parties are automatically formed, and a battle begins. The NM is defeated, rewards are doled out, and the players go their separate ways.

Things like Hamlet Defense and Caravan Security will be considered Full Active Time Events. With this system, many different things will take place in many different places. That’s how I’d like you to think of it for now.

Players will be able to experience it in the Beta Test.

They didn't really answer. That was taken from the live letter back in November.

I believe nothing has change as far as the max 8 party members for most of the endgame content, but you can see on the ARR dungeon video that they have 4. So I imagen that there will be 4 and 8 members dungeon content and Yoshi-P said that raids will be 24 members. That is why alot of endgame LS are recruiting to get the 24 members number for raids.

Since eight is quite a lot for an instance I have a small hope that the chocobo companions are good enough to use as a "stupid" party member for instances as well. When I played SWTOR with one of my brothers and a friend we always used a companion as the last party member. Partly because it was more convinient, but also because it was quite fun to have an additional thing to consider and use.

Personally I prefer a more intimate 4-5 man party. Easier to build, easier to converse, easier to arrange with friends. The bigger the party, the harder everything is. I'm also reminded of all the full-alliance raids in FFXI where no one was -allowed- to talk because managing that many people was just a huge headache for the leader.

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.

Personally I prefer a more intimate 4-5 man party. Easier to build, easier to converse, easier to arrange with friends. The bigger the party, the harder everything is. I'm also reminded of all the full-alliance raids in FFXI where no one was -allowed- to talk because managing that many people was just a huge headache for the leader.

I would agree actually. Eight is quite a lot and while it doesn't have to go as low as four, I would be happy with less than eight for sure.

8 was too many. It took too long to form the party, communication wasn't tight, and it felt like an alliance. and content was all meant to be done with a full 8 player party. I'm not sure what they were thinking with some of the things in this game...

they probably wont change the party member count sadly, I personally think about 5-player content is fun , or 4

seems like a lot of ARR content will further stray away from this though with giant cluster f-ck activities that require no tactics or communication

Personally I prefer a more intimate 4-5 man party. Easier to build, easier to converse, easier to arrange with friends. The bigger the party, the harder everything is. I'm also reminded of all the full-alliance raids in FFXI where no one was -allowed- to talk because managing that many people was just a huge headache for the leader.

I totally agree. FFFXI's full party of six was just fine, but I actually enjoyed smaller ones. It's probably going to be eight men in again. Not sure what the reason is. Just to be different from FFXI perhaps?

Seems a bit backwards to me. The one that actually requires a bit of planning you could just faceroll, while the one you might stumble upon completely by accident acts like it doesn't even want you there.

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.

The one FATE I did I was too high to get any reward from, but perhaps FATEs are more about XP than items whereas dungeons are more about items than XP? Just a thought.

Wint wrote:

FATE's awards are probably different than a dungeons?

The one FATE I did I was too high to get any reward from, but perhaps FATEs are more about XP than items whereas dungeons are more about items than XP? Just a thought.

I guess that'd be fine, though it seems like something of a shame to restrict the rewards as such. Either the FATEs become leveling tools that get boring quickly through repetition, or they become rarities that one can't expect to experience with any consistency.

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.

I'm just guessing here, you know my experience with FATE was limited in my hands on, and I didn't even bother to check the treasure when we finished Toto-Rak because I wanted to get on to another scenario they had outlined.

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.

First of all, be happy that the party sizes is 8. At release of 1.0 the max party size was 10, it was crazy trying to get 10 people together but it was fun for leveling in guildleves. Fate is open world attacks, probably SE don't want for a level 50 come and mess around level 20 fate and try to take the rewards from the players that needs them.

Dungeons will have a level sincronization and are intance so other than your group, you cannot mess with anybody else. Other than the achivement; dungeon gear is usually untradedable so you cannot take any advance by trying to sell it and the gear will be so low if you are a level 35 on a lv15 dungeon that it will be really useless for you.

I think that is the main reason for allowing higher levels to hit the dungeons while fate not, it was aggrevating when a lv50 player will come to a lv10 behest and grab all of the mobs just to mess with the players doing the behest in 1.0.

I think that is the main reason for allowing higher levels to hit the dungeons while fate not, it was aggrevating when a lv50 player will come to a lv10 behest and grab all of the mobs just to mess with the players doing the behest in 1.0.

I figured that was a bit obvious. I don't see what the complaint is with encouraging higher levels refrain from lower level F.A.T.E.s. I mean if fate was about killing mobs etc for exp/loot, It really wouldn't be fun for that over lvled *** to be there when he should just go do a F.A.T.E. for his level. It was always annoying seeing that level 30 at the level 20 behest killing the exp for everyone. Didn't matter if you didn't invite him, he'd just run around killing the mobs anyway, defeating the whole purpose.

But that's kind of the problem. If these FATEs are really so fun, people WILL do them whether you give them a reward or not. And if they're not, then that's obviously not good either.

This is where you can see an incentive system starting to show signs of weakness: when you have content that people want to do, but you don't reward them for doing it. As important as anything else, successful games align player goals with enjoyable tasks. Narrow windows for completing content (especially in a game that will probably suffer from a lack of content, at least a little bit) suggest that the content is being managed poorly as a finite resource.

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.